Recent Drug Cases

• Drug Supply & Proceeds of Crime Charges Withdrawn

Our client is a 20-year-old international rugby player. He was playing first grade in Australia and had recently received an offer to play professionally in France.

On the day of the incident he was driving a friend to Darling Harbour in Sydney.

While attempting to make a right turn, a pedestrian ran in front of his vehicle. He stopped and began having a verbal argument with the pedestrian.

Unbeknownst to him, a police vehicle was behind him. The police vehicle’s sirens were activated for our client to move his vehicle and shortly thereafter pull over.

Police approached our client and began questioning him. In the course of questioning, our client said that he was heading to Home Bar to pick up a mate, but had difficulty in providing a name for this mate. Police were aware that Home Bar was in fact closed due to COVID restrictions.

Based on this, as well as Darling Harbour being a ‘known area for drug supply’, police conducted a search of the vehicle claiming they had a reasonable suspicion that drugs were in the vehicle.

He was placed under arrest and cautioned as to his right to silence.

As a result of their search, they located bags of cocaine and methylamphetamine, as well as a large amount of cash. The cash was found in the centre console, while the cocaine was found in the driver side door, under our client’s keys. It would have been in plain sight of the driver.

The methylamphetamine was found in the passenger side door where our client’s friend was sitting. There was also cocaine found under the passenger seat.

A short time later Police had our client use his fingerprint to open his phone so they could view his messages. The messages indicated significant drug supply activity.

Our client and his friend were charged with drug supply and knowingly deal with proceeds of crime. The case was listed at Downing Centre Local Court.

He came to us distraught that his career would be over if he were convicted of the offences.

We immediately got to work preparing his defence. First, we obtained a statement from a friend of our client who confirmed that the cash was obtained legitimately as a result of gambling.

We then subpoenaed the criminal history of the passenger. This revealed a lengthy criminal record for offences of dishonesty, violence and being dealt with by the drug court.

We then obtained body worn footage of the police officers which had recorded most of the interaction.

After reviewing this material, we wrote representations to police seeking the charges be dropped on the following basis’:

• That the stopping of our client’s vehicle was unlawful as police did not have any reasonable suspicion that an offence had occurred at that time;
• That the search of our client’s vehicle was unlawful as police did not have any reasonable suspicion that there were drugs in the vehicle;
• That police obtaining access to our client’s mobile phone by having him use his fingerprint was a breach of his right to silence and a separate caution was required for this;
• That Police could not prove exclusive possession of the drugs on the part of our client, as they could have belonged to the passenger – especially given his criminal record.

Ultimately, after weeks of negotiations, police were persuaded to withdraw the proceeds of crime and drug supply charges against our client.

As such, he is now able to continue his career. We were also able to ensure that his name was not mentioned in the media.

Our client and his family were overjoyed with the result.
• Bail Granted for Commercial Drug Supply charges, while co-accuseds remain in jail

Our client is a 22-year old man who immigrated to Australia from Vietnam.
He, along with 2 other people, was charged with Supplying a Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug.
Police had been granted surveillance warrants for our client’s phone as well as the phones of the co-accuseds.
The Police Facts indicated that there were messages consistent with drug supply on all three phones. Police had also been following all three accuseds and alleged that they had witnessed a drug transaction.
Our client’s family called us distraught with little information about what had occurred.
We immediately got to work by contacting Police to determine what our client had been charged with and where he was being held.
We were advised that the client was being held at Surry Hills Police Station and would be brought before Central Local Court the next morning.
We obtained the Facts Sheet from the Police and began preparing to make a bail application.
We obtained medical documents as to the hardship our client would suffer in custody. We also were able to prepare a number of letters from people who could ensure that our client complied with any bail conditions.
The prosecution strenuously opposed bail, arguing that a term of imprisonment was inevitable and that the prosecution case was ‘air-tight’. They also argued that our client was a flight risk due to the fact that he was not an Australian citizen.
In our submissions, we systematically broke down each of the prosecutions’ arguments.
First, we argued that the case against our client was ‘circumstantial’. This meant that the prosecution would have to rebut every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt (see: The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308).
We then handed up decisions of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal which confirmed that even if our client was found guilty, a term of imprisonment could be avoided.
Finally, we tendered the medical material and letters which confirmed that our client had strong family and community ties in Australia.
Ultimately, the magistrate granted our client bail. In doing so, he specifically commented on the thoroughness of preparation and persuasiveness of our submissions.
Our client is currently living with family in Australia as we prepare for the Trial.
The co-accuseds have remained in custody for the past 18 months awaiting Trial.
• No Conviction for Drug Charges Despite Previous ‘Section 10’ for Same Charge

We appeared at Parramatta District Court for a severity appeal involving serious drug charges.

This was compounded by the facts that our client had received a ‘Section 10’ good behaviour bond for the same charge within the last 2 years.

In the Local Court our client had been represented by another firm and received a criminal conviction. He came to us unhappy with his representation and seeking to avoid a criminal conviction.

We immediately got to work by arranging both psychological counselling and enrolling him in an intensive drug rehabilitation program.

We adjourned the first Court date for 2 months to allow him to obtain treatment and complete the program.

We also obtained letters from his employer setting out that a criminal conviction would preclude him from continuing his employment as the company worked with government agencies that required Police checks.

At the appeal we called our client to give evidence in the witness box. This is generally a risky move as it exposed him to being cross-examined by an experienced Crown prosecutor.

Despite this, we prepared him well and he was able to answer the questions posed to him by the prosecutor and the Judge.

We made lengthy oral submissions highlighting the strong subjective factors we had prepared. We also brought the Court’s attention to the decision of R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 and the relevant factors in favour of allowing the appeal.

In the result and despite the prosecutor’s strong opposition, the Judge was persuaded to agree with our submissions, and our client was granted a ‘conditional release order without conviction’.
• No Criminal Record for Drug Supply of 18 ‘Ecstacy’ Tablets

Our client is a 22-year-old man from the United Kingdom who is on a student visa.
He is studying a Bachelor of Laws at the University of technology Sydney.
Throughout the night and into the early hours of the morning, Police had been conducting a drug dog operation in the Kings Cross area.
Police sighted our client. Ur client made eye contact with Police and then immediately turned around and began walking away.
They approached our client and asked if he consented to being searched, which he did.
In the course of the search, police located a resealable plastic bag containing 18 capsules of MDMA (‘ecstacy’) secreted in our client’s underwear.
Our client was arrested and cautioned. He made full and frank admissions to possessing the tablets. He also stated that he intended to share the capsules with his friends.
In NSW, sharing a prohibited drug with another person – even if you do not receive any payment for it – is considered supply.
As such, our client was charged with supplying a prohibited drug.
Our client had been to a number of other lawyers who had told him that he could not avoid a conviction.
We thought otherwise.
We immediately began preparing our client for sentencing.
He was provided with our tailored Apology Letter and Character Reference Guides. We also arranged for him to attend the SMART Recovery Program.
We obtained his Unite Kingdom criminal record (which was clean).
We also obtained his academic transcript as well as letters from lecturers and tutors at his University which confirmed the impact a criminal conviction would have on his career prospects would be devastating.
In Court we made lengthy oral submissions highlighting the strong subjective case we had prepared.
We also brought the Court’s attention to the decision of R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 which confirmed that despite the number of pills, a ‘non-conviction’ order was within range.
The Magistrate was persuaded not to impose a criminal record on our client and released him on a two-year good behaviour bond without conviction.
Our client was ecstatic and looks forward to pursuing his career in law.
• Not guilty of drug supply and proceeds of crime due to illegal search

Our client is a 23 year old University student from the Sydney’s south-west.
Police observed a car that was double parked in the middle of street in the Sydney CBD, which they claimed is ‘well known for drug use and supply’
They conducted a vehicle enquiry through their Mobipol system to obtain the registration particulars of the car.
The enquiry suggested the vehicle was registered to a family member of an organised crime group, and that the member was previously convicted of drug supply.
Police approached the vehicle and saw four individuals inside. The owner and his associate were in the front seats, and our client and a television presenter in the back.
Police questioned each of the occupants, and our client disclosed that he was in possession of a quantity of cocaine. They searched our client and located a large resealable bag of cocaine down the front of his pants, two small bags of cocaine in his wallet, nearly $5,000 in cash and two mobile telephones.
They arrested and conveyed our client to the police station, where he participated in an interview and made certain admissions.
One of the phones in our client’s possession contained messages indicative of drug supply. Our client told police that this phone did not belong to him, but to one of the other occupants.
Our client was charged with drug supply due to the quantity of drugs in the large resealable bag and contents of the phone messages, and with proceeds of crime for the cash found on him.
Our defence team undertook a considerable amount of work establishing there was insufficient evidence to prove ownership of the phone and gathering evidence regarding duress.
Duress is when a person commits an offence because threats are made against them to such an extent that a reasonable person in their position would comply.
The case ultimately proceeded to a jury trial in Downing Centre District Court.
Once evidence of duress was raised, the prosecution made submissions that a serious threat of violence could not be established as our client was aware of the presence of police nearby. It was further submitted that the text messages suggesting supply were from our client, as other evidence suggested he was indeed the sender of those transmissions.
Our cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, including expert witnesses, supported by documents gathered by the defence completely defeated the prosecution’s ability to negative the defence of duress. It was a systematic and complete dismantling of the prosecution case which meant we did not need to put our client on the witness stand to testify and face cross examination.
In the result, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty for both charges, and the alleged proceeds of crime was refunded to our client.